Total Visits

Friday, 24 February 2012

This Monday I did the filming for the BBC’s Daily Politics “Soap Box” slot which will be broadcast on the BBC2 “Daily Politics Show” on Wednesday, 29th February. The programme starts at 11.30 a.m.

The BBC filming team were very helpful, supportive and encouraging to me as a rookie broadcaster. Whilst I certainly don’t think that I have missed a role in life in which I could have made a great success at earning Jeremy Paxman type money, nevertheless I hope the film will come out well!

After the film has been shown during the programme I shall be appearing in the studio to debate the need for an English Parliament with a Government Minister and an Opposition Shadow Minister on what is after all the Daily Politics Shows most high profile programme in the week i.e. the one following on from Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Please do look out for the programme and tell all your friends and family to either watch it or play it on BBC IPlayer as this certainly will be one of the most high profile bits of media coverage that anyone from the English Nationalist cause has yet managed. Let’s work to ensure that by the next leap year we have really made a difference – for England’s sake!

After the broadcast I shall be interested to hear your comments as to how you think it went!

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Today we had a highly revealing and significant exchange in the House of Commons, during Prime Minister's Questions. Here is a transcript:-
12:21 22 February 2012
Frank Field MP:
“Given what the Prime Minister said last week in Scotland, will he devote as much time to facing up to the grievances that the English feel, from the current proposals of devolution, as he will be giving to considering new proposals of devolution for Scotland? Will he open a major debate here in the House, on the English Question? So that members from all parts of the House can advise him on what measures of devolution England needs, if we are to gain equity with other countries in the United Kingdom?”

12:24 22 February 2012
David Cameron PM:
“We have obviously set up the West Lothian Group to look at this Issue, and obviously we want to make sure that Devolution works for everyone in the United Kingdom, but I would part company slightly with the Right Honourable Gentleman, for this reason, that I believe the United Kingdom has been an incredibly successful partnership between all its members and I think that actually, far from wanting to appeal to English People that in any way to sort of nurture a grievance they may feel, I want to appeal to my fellow Englishmen to say, this has been a great partnership; a great partnership for Scotland; but a great partnership for England too; of course Scotland must makes its choice, but we hope that Scotland will choose to remain in this partnership, that has done so well for the past 300 years"

Here is the link, if you would like to see the PMQ question asked by Frank Field >>> Click here

How strange for Cameron to now try to call himself an "Englishman" when, despite being an MP for an English seat, he declared to the BBC's Andrew Marr, that he wasn't going to do anything about the unfair extra funding formula for Scotland because "I'm a Cameron" and "there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins." Could he now be trying to bamboozle us that he is one of us after all?

Also it should make it crystal clear to anyone with ears to hear that neither he nor the Tories will ever be interested in doing what is right and fair by the English nation. Also it shows that we need our own party to (politically) force the British Unionist Establishment to do right or to replace them!

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Over the last few weeks we have seen the first both significant and also effective Westminster focused opposition to the coalition’s plans to drastically cut benefits for the disabled. Not, as you might have expected, with assistance from the official “Opposition” but instead from Cross-Bencher Peers and Bishops in the House of Lords.

I have been sent a copy of an email sent to all Members of the House of Lords by the Black Triangle Group, a “Scottish based disabled advocacy and Campaign group”. The email is lobbying to try to ensure that Peers stand firm in their resistance.

I quote some extracts below which make interesting reading:-

"… We suggest that Britain today is both in a state of constitutional crisis and that there exists a democratic deficit that is the genesis of a crisis of democratic legitimacy.

When our present government came to power in May 2010, it did so on a mere 23% share of the popular vote.

A coalition government was formed on the basis of agreements made between the elites of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties without the democratic mandate of our people.

It is a Government that is now intent on forcing upon our population extreme right-wing policies, legislation and cuts to services in the fields of welfare, health and social care and justice.

They are policies and actions for which the electorate have not voted for and which did not appear in any party political manifesto. The Welfare Reform Bill did not form part of the Coalition Agreement and runs directly counter to the expressed wishes of rank and file Liberal Democrats members who voted to pass motions to ensure that many of the amendments for which you voted are Liberal Democrat party policy.

All those Liberal Democrats who have voted with the Government have done so in direct contravention of their own party’s policies, formulated, debated and passed at an autumn conference held under the slogan “In Government, on your side”! ...

...Furthermore, speaking here for the Black Triangle as a Scottish-based disabled advocacy and campaign group; we say that it would be salutary for everyone to sit up and take full note of the nearly unanimous and united opposition of the people of Scotland, from every sector and strata of our society up to and including our Scottish Government, to these despicable ‘reforms’ that the Westminster government is seeking to impose upon us.

These ‘reforms’ have zero mandate here in Scotland.

We are a nation which has returned just one Tory MP and where those who voted Liberal Democrat feel deeply betrayed by a party that is seen to have sold-out its founding principles for which they voted for a chance to be ‘in government’.

At the time of writing, the SNP Scottish Government is working with Scottish Labour are to do all they can to mitigate the evil impact of this bill on our sick and/or disabled people by urgently drafting our own legislation in all the areas the bill touches upon that are within our competence, under the existing devolved constitutional settlement.

The SNP and First Minister Alex Salmond have made public statements that welfare should be an area under home control and that were this the case there is absolutely no way that Scotland would ever countenance such draconian legislation which is anathema to Scottish values of social solidarity, social inclusion and equality which have been expressed as a very rich thread running through the course of our history and culture.

We warn that it would be very foolish to suggest that the passing of this bill in its current form, without your amendments, will (not) make a vote for Scotland’s full succession from the United Kingdom an even more likely prospect.

We must also point out that, under conditions in which Scotland regains her full autonomy and the democratic deficit north of the border is effectively cancelled out, the corresponding democratic deficit south of the border will continue to grow in like measure as the likelihood of a party offering a progressive alternative to the current regime at Westminster diminishes.

Without the Scottish contingent of Labour MP’s at Westminster, there is little chance of the Labour party ever forming a majority administration again. The entire future of progressive politics of any kind in England is therefore at stake.

Labour support in Scotland is haemorrhaging and now stands at its lowest point ever in our history.

The parliamentary party’s continuing failure to provide a genuine opposition or Left alternative to the dominant ConDem narrative and ideology of the cuts and austerity which is killing our country’s economy is the root cause of this.

Similarly, the Labour front bench’s failure to take a principled stand in opposing cuts to the welfare benefits of sick and/or disabled people sooner and their acquiescence (and outright collaboration) with the narrative and consensus of the right surrounding welfare reform, keeping “one eye on the focus groups and the other on the Daily Mail” has cost it dearly here.

Monday, 20 February 2012

Any English person should take heart from a recent Judgment of Cambridge County Court, the key elements of which I set out below.

If you encounter anti-English discrimination, in any form – SUE, help the Cause and also make yourself some money!_____________________________________________________

EXTRACTS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE PATRICK MALONEY QCHANDED DOWN ON THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010IN A CASE AGAINST HSBC BANK

_____________________________________________________

1. “Racial grounds (includes) colour, race, nationality and ethnic or national origins. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to decide into which of these categories the English may fall, because the Bank does not dispute that if it were to discriminate against or harass the Claimants on the ground that they were English, that would be a racial ground.”

2. “The Claimants’ primary case is that the relevant comparison here must be with a non-English nationalist politician, e.g. a Welsh or Scottish nationalist. If such a person had sought to open a party account, he would have been permitted to do so. The fact that they were not so permitted shows, they say, that it was the word “English” which was the determining factor. That word must have triggered a demeaning racial stereotype of a specifically English nationalist (perhaps a loutish racist skinhead) in the (Bank Manager’s) mind, and led him to conclude that association with such people would be harmful to the Bank’s reputation.”

3. “The Defendants’ response is that their decisions in question were based, not on any consideration of the Claimants’ English origins or allegiance, but on an assessment of their political views (as the Bank mistakenly understood them to be). The Defendants accepted … that the (English Democrats) Party is not a racist (or for that matter undemocratic...party.”

4. “As I have already hinted….above, (any attempt to argue a) sharp distinction between one’s race and one’s beliefs may be an over-simplification, at least in an unusual case like the present one. A discriminator may say “I am not employing him because I believe he is a racist”. Fair enough; but if on further inquiry he goes on to say “I believe he is a racist because he is a white man with an English accent and a St George’s flag on his car” then the question of racial grounds is reopened. Put another way, it is as possible to make racist assumptions about other people’s opinions as about, for example, their honesty or intelligence, and discrimination on such a basis would appear to be unlawful. Where the opinions in question are or include nationalist ones, that is ones closely linked to the person’s own perceived national origins or affiliations, the risk of overlap is particularly great.”

5. “The conduct element of (a), discrimination, is admitted, in that the Bank accepts that by refusing to allow the (Second Claimant) to open a bank account it treated him less favourably than others in respect of the provision of facilities or services to the public (RRA 1976, ss. 1 and 20).”

6. On the question of harassment“As to the (Second Claimant)… He went into the Bank with £5 for what he expected would be a straightforward business transaction. Instead he found that, perfectly politely, he was questioned as to his deeply-held political beliefs, which in the context of a staunch nationalist relate particularly closely to his sense of personal identity and community; and then those beliefs (or rather, a hearsay version of them) were judged in his absence by a stranger, and he was found to be unworthy of the privilege of banking with HSBC. It is clear to me that this was unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating his personal dignity, and that it was reasonable for him to feel “angry, perplexed and demeaned” as he told us he did.”

7. “in the case of this or any specifically nationalist political party there is bound to be a close nexus between the members’ perceived sense of ethnic or national community and their political views...”

“(The First Claimant’s) version is that, when asked why he wouldn’t open an account for the Party, (the Bank Manager) replied in the following terms:a. because you are an English political party;b. any association between an English political party and HSBC would be detrimental to the Bank;c. anything English is right wing;d. anything English is racist;e. and that, when told action would be taken under the Race Relations Act, he laughed.(If (the Bank Manager) did indeed say those things, it would of course be very offensive to (the First Claimant) and very strong evidence that (the Bank Manager’s) decisions had been improperly influenced by some form of prejudice based on the Claimants’ English ethnic or national origins.)”

8. “In this case, however, I am satisfied that (the Bank Manager) did not take racial grounds into account, either directly or indirectly, in reaching his decision to refuse the application for an account.”

9. This is not to say that we regard the Bank Manager's conduct as beyond reproach. With hindsight it would have been better for him to make more careful inquiries before reaching his initial decision, rather than simply relying on (the Bank Clerk) Ms Patel’s short report; and we hope that a more experienced bank manager would have reconsidered the case, or at least made further inquiries, on being told that the Party was in fact an existing customer of the Bank. After all, there was no urgency to the matter at all. In short, we take the view that (the Second Claimant) was the victim of a degree of unfair discrimination and harassment at the Bank’s hands, but not on racial or other prohibited grounds.”

10. “It follows that for the reasons set out above the Claimants fail in respect of each of their claims. I am asked, however, to consider the issue of damages in the alternative, that is, on the hypothetical basis that each of the Claimants had succeeded in making out his pleaded case. The relevant head of damages in each case is injury to feelings. We were taken to the leading cases of Vento v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2002] EWCA (Civ) 1871 and DaBell v. NSPCC [2010] IRLR 19. These establish three bands, which are, in decreasing order of gravity:

a. the most serious cases: £18,000 to £30,000;b. serious cases falling below the highest band: £6,000 to £18,000:c. less serious cases:£500 to £6,000.

Mr Tilbrook accepted that this was not a top-band case but sought to persuade us that it was in the middle band. I bear in mind that, if the Claimants had succeeded, we would be dealing with an unpleasant example of racial discrimination and harassment by a multi-national company of enormous size, and that (the First Claimant) would have been subjected to some extraordinary and offensive remarks. However, I also bear in mind that this was a single short-lived incident, and that (the First Claimant)( in particular is a resilient person who was quick to take advantage of the situation. Both Claimants undoubtedly suffered real anger, distress and humiliation from the incident, but quickly recovered without lasting ill effects. After consulting my experienced colleagues, I have concluded that an important consideration here would have been to award such a sum as clearly declared that they had been the victims of a serious incident, but did not unfairly overcompensate them, and I would (on this hypothesis) have awarded them a total of £1,000 each in respect of all their claims.”

If you think you may have experienced Anti-English discrimination, for advice contact either >>> http://www.englishlobby.net/ (if your case is general) Or >>> http://www.workersofengland.co.uk/ (if your case is an employee one)

Friday, 17 February 2012

To make the point that we English urgently need someone to fight for England's interests - have a look at this edited statement:- "The Scottish Affairs Commons Select Committee is (looking at Scotland's Independence Referendum and is) calling on the Secretary of State for Scotland to .... achieve a positive result for the people of Scotland."

Nothing wrong in that you may say - except no-one in Parliament is doing the same for us and 'trying to achieve a positive result for the People of England!'Help us do so!!

Here is the full article:-

In a report published today Wednesday 15 February 2012 the Scottish Affairs Committee sets out a range of important questions that must be answered before the people of Scotland can properly consider any proposed question of separation.

Comment from the ChairIan Davidson MP, Chair of the Committee, said:

"The big question about such an unknown quantity as separation is the terms of the "divorce settlement"; how resources, rights and responsibilities will be broken up.The responses we've had clearly show that there is confusion and concern about this, but also that you only need to scratch the surface to reveal how many complex questions there are; across banking, pensions, currency, national defences - and many more personal things.

Questions that may seem trivial at first actually show just how this issue permeates through every aspect of life: from the television you watch to how you travel round the world.

The purpose of this inquiry is to set out from the start some of those questions and begin to explore their answers, with the aim of helping to make this process as clear and fair as possible.

You cannot ask a big question about separation – however you construct it – without first asking and answering all these questions about how it will affect every aspect of every life, in Scotland and the UK as a whole. There are also questions here for other select committees, and we are aware that some may conduct their own inquiries.

We will be holding a series of evidence sessions on the key themes raised in this report, and will be led by the evidence as new questions come up.

We are calling on the Secretary of State for Scotland to take responsibility for co-ordinating the responses across government, and to work closely with us to provide the factual, unbiased information that is required for this process to be fair and transparent and achieve a positive result for the people of Scotland.

In addition to this work we are doing, we also expect those who support the break-up of Britain to explain the consequences for the jobs and lives of ordinary Scots."

Main areasThe report states the six main areas where Secretary of State for Scotland Rt Hon Michael Moore has identified clarification is required:

Bank regulationPension paymentsThe national currencyMembership of international organisationsScotland's defencesCosts of SeparationThe Committee asked members of the public to submit their questions on what matters need to be clarified on these very broad themes, and what additional questions need to be resolved. In addition the Daily Record launched a campaign in support of the inquiry and its readers have also submitted a series of questions. All the questions received so far are published with this report, and will form the basis of the inquiry.

The Committee says that while the list of questions its sets out in the report is by no means exhaustive, it indicates the scale and complexity of the issues which need to be resolved.

Many relate to specific policy areas where the answers would most likely vary according to which political party or parties formed a Government in a separate Scotland. While it is fair to raise these questions - they will be crucial to voters in determining which party they might vote for in any Scottish General Election post-separation – the Committee says the main structural and institutional issues, which will form the constitutional architecture of a post-separation Scotland, are more pressing in terms of enabling the electorate to make a choice on how they would vote in a referendum on Separation. It is these questions that will be the focus for the Committee.

RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that as a matter of urgency, the Secretary of State for Scotland:

takes responsibility for clarifying the UK Government's position on appropriate matters, by co-ordinating work across the Cabinetundertakes to work with the Committee to provide a joint provision of factual and unbiased information to the people of Scotland.

Here is the link to the original article >>> http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/scottish-affairs-committee/news/separation-unanswered-questions-report/

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Some years ago Neil Addison, a barrister, and I conducted a case challenging, pro bono, the ruling of Norwich Magistrates that St George's day wasn't special in England.

It is a measure of how far we have moved in a few short years since 2005 that when we did this we and our cleint were made to feel daringly out of line but now it is that court decision which seems crazy - rather than the standard official view which is what it was then - then naturally the High Court in effect upheld the Magistrate's decision!

Here is the skeleton Arguement as presented by Neil in open court:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE C0/38172005QUUENS BENCH DIVISION(Administrative Court)

1) In the reply from the defendants in this case and in the refusal of leave to apply for Judicial Review the point is made that licensing legislation is changing and the Licensing Act 1964 will no longer be in force in 2006. It is respectfully submitted that that argument is accepted by the court then the effect is that the Claimant is entirely without any form of legal remedy even though he claims to have been treated unlawfully. It is respectfully submitted that such a response should be rejected by the Court.

The defendant is not seeking damages but he is seeking a recognition of the fact that he has been treated unlawfully. Even though a judicial declaration cannot change the past the obtaining of a declaration is itself a remedy which he is entitled to have.As was stated by Lord Denning LJ in Barnard v National Dock Labour Board 1953 1 AllER 1113, 1953 2QB 18 (last paragraph of his judgement)

“In the course of the argument counsel was compelled to admit that if the plaintiffs had no remedy by way of declaration they had no remedy at all. ……….if the plaintiffs cannot get redress here they cannot get it anywhere else. I think that they are entitled to redress “ That judgement by Lord Denning was supported by the Judgements of two other Judges of the Court of Appeal. Similarly in the case of R v Secretary of State for Social Services ex parte Association of Metropolitan Authorities 1986 1AllER 164 Romer LJ granted a declaration that certain statutory regulations had been improperly made even though by the time of the hearing the regulations in question had been superseded by new and lawful regulations.

Correction to Response by Defendants

2) In page 2 of the response from the defendants (paragraphs not numbered) it is said of Claimants Exhibit TB/4 that “only pages 16 to 20 relate to functions organised in 2005.”. This is incorrect pages TB/4 1-12 also deal with events in 2005. The list in pages 16 to 20 are also described as “relatively short”. A breakdown of the events in 2005 is as follows

3) Furthermore the Claimant submits that any consideration of the legality and correctness of the defendants decision must be based not on their detailed response but on the Judgement that they gave at the time as set out in document TB/2 annexed to the Claimants witness statement. In that judgement they said that the events organised by the Claimant

“is not part of any national or local celebrations organised primarily by third parties instead it is organised by Mr Bennett and he would benefit financially from any extension. A licensee is not entitled to organise an event and call it a special occasion”

It is respectfully submitted that that paragraph in itself demonstrates that the decision by the Magistrates was perverse in that it ignored all the other events organised throughout England for St Georges Day. The claimant submits that any national celebration ultimately takes place within individual localities but celebrations organised throughout the country collectively constitute national celebrations albeit each celebration is local.

The Claimant therefore submits that the reasoning used by the Magistrates in reaching their decision was fundamentally flawed The Claimant did not invent St Georges Day, nor did he invent the fact that St George is the Patron Saint of England. The events he was organising were part of a large number of St Georges Day events being organised throughout England and should have been recognised as such by the Magistrates..

Sunday, 12 February 2012

Tonight Paul Nuttall, UKIP's chairman, presented the Politics Slot on Channel 4. I was delighted to see that my meetings with him and Nigel Farage have thus far borne fruit. In the King James version of the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 15, we find the 'Parable of the Lost Sheep':-

Jesus "spake this parable unto them, saying:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he finds it?

5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost?

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance."

However, in UKIP's case, it does pay to be cautious before rejoicing. Paul's proposal is just that - a proposed policy. It will not become UKIP's actual policy unless their membership approve it - which presumably they will have the chance to do at their next party conference in March. It is by no means certain that they will do so however as can be seen by this item >>> http://juniusonukip.blogspot.com/2011/12/farage-and-nuttall-v-ukip-wales-party.html

I have also been here before. I helped formulate their previous devolution policy, when it was being written by their then Chairman, now Tory defector, David Campbell Bannerman. After David had retricted the policy to a version of English Votes for English Laws, I was surprised to see him claim on TV that 'UKIP were now the only party campaigning for an English Parliament'!

Nevertheless I think we may be cautiously optimistic that the English Democrats' campaign for 'an English Parliament, First Minister and Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones' may be shortly joined by UKIP.

If that happens we English Nationalists will be a significant step closer to the day when we have our own English version of Alex Salmond as our First Minister standing up for English Interests!

Thursday, 9 February 2012

I was invited to give a speech to Students at the University of Nottingham, faculty of Law and Social Sciences today. Here is the text:-

Ladies and Gentlemen

Thank you for your kind welcome to Nottingham University. Thank you also to Dr Goodwin for inviting me. I would like to say first that I think that you are lucky to have Dr Goodwin as a teacher who is such a very well respected and clear eyed analyst of contemporary politics.

I thought that I would start by saying a few things about myself. I am a Solicitor; and I must also confess to a dirty secret – mine is that I am a “recovering” Tory! You know like a “recovering” alcoholic!

I am one of the founder members of the English Democrats and have been Chairman since we launched in August 2002. We are a Party which has grown organically from nothing to nearly 3,000 members. We have members who have previously been from all sorts of parties. We have at least one who is an ex SWP, ex Tories, ex UKIPers, ex BNP, ex Labour and ex Lib Dems and also quite a few who have never been members of any other political party.

We are all unpaid volunteers and all the money which we have raised has been spent on improving our Party and on campaigning and indeed many of us have put in significant sums of money into our campaign.

Why have we done this? The answer, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that we have done it because we are patriotic and we love England and I for one am not willing to go to my grave without having done all in my power to preserve England and to do all that I can for the future of our country.

I mentioned that I am a Solicitor but there are different schools for lawyers and unfortunately, for my family, I didn’t get trained in the way that I read about recently of a lawyer in the USA.

This is called “The Great Lawyer Story!”

Apparently, Ladies and Gentlemen, a US based charity called the United Way realised that it had never received a donation from the city’s most successful lawyer. So a United Way volunteer paid the lawyer a visit in his lavish office.

The volunteer opened the meeting by saying, “Our research shows that even though your annual income is over two million dollars, you don’t give a penny to charity. Wouldn’t you like to give something back to your community through the United Way?”

The lawyer thought for a minute and said, “First, did your research also show you that my mother is dying after a long painful illness and she has huge medical bills that are far beyond her ability to pay?”

Embarrassed the United Way rep mumbles, “Uh … no, I didn’t know that”.

“Second” said the lawyer, “did it show that my brother, a disabled veteran, is blind and confined to a wheelchair and is unable to support his wife and children?”

The stricken United Way rep begins to stammer an apology but is cut off again.

“Third, did your research also show you that my sister’s husband died in a dreadful car accident, leaving her penniless with a mortgage and three children, one of whom is disabled and another who has learning difficulties requiring an array of private tutors?”

The humiliated United Way rep, completely beaten, says, “I’m so sorry, I had no idea”.

And the lawyer then said,, “So… if I didn’t give any money to them, what the hell makes you think I’d give any to you?”

When the English Democrats were launched in 2002 England faced being broken up into “Regions”. The Regionalisation Scheme was started by John Major’s Government, after the Maastricht Treaty, but in 2002 it was then pursued enthusiastically by Labour, with John Prescott, the then Deputy Prime Minister, officially claiming that “There is no such nationality as English”. This kind of remark was backed by William Hague who said, during a BBC interview, that “English Nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism”. The aim of Regionalisation, as clearly stated, by the then Liberal Democrat’s Leader, to a meeting of Dunfermline’s Liberal Democrats. Charlie Kennedy said, and I quote, that he, Charles Kennedy, supported “Breaking England up into EU Regions because “it is calling into question the idea of England itself”. Imagine the furore if that remark had been made by an Englishman about Scotland!

The English Democrats campaigned in the North East Regional Assembly Referendum for a No Vote and we have now seen off any chance of Regionalisation gaining any popular mandate, if the Labour supporting Think Tank the IPPR can be believed – and I think they can as the result is against what they previously supported – they have found that there now is a mere 9% support for “Each Region of England to have its own Assembly”.

The English Democrats have also been, from the start, in the forefront of bringing the Barnett Formula, the unfair extra spending in Scotland and Wales, to the attention of the English.

When I first started campaigning I actually had people accuse me of lying because they had never heard of the Barnett Formula from the British media. Again the IPPR report shows awareness of this beginning to rise in early 2003 just as we began actually campaigning.

Now the English overwhelmingly want to see action to address this. The IPPR report says that there is:-

“A growing perception within England that the English get a raw deal from the devolution settlement. (It is) clear that there is an increasingly strong tendency in England to believe that Scotland gets more than its ‘fair share’ of public spending. Indeed the number of people who believe this has more than doubled in the last decade.”

Ladies and Gentlemen the kind of issues that we are talking about here may well affect you personally. Take for example the question of student tuition fees. The history of this issue is very instructive of how politics in the UK works.

When I and all those who made their decisions about tuition fees went to university not only didn’t we have to pay fees but also even if like, Blair, Cameron and Clegg, they came from well off families, we got grants for living expenses.

All three British Establishment parties have at various times promised not to introduce them and have behaved thoroughly dishonestly and dishonourably. Tony Blair in his book airily branches off by saying that it shows how unwise it is for a politician to promise anything specific in a manifesto.

When on 27th January 2004 tuition fees were raised to £3,000 Labour only got it voted through using their Scottish and Welsh MPs, when their Nations Governments had already promised not to increase fees at the time of course the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were against Top Up Fees as they were then called. Since then Labour went into the last General Election having set up a review under Lord Browne promising to implement his recommendations but tried to report after the General Election. The Lib Dems went farthest promising to vote against Top Up Fees but reneged on that promise.

For me however the main issue is that it is grossly unfair that the next academic years English students will be made to pay £9,000 per year when Scotland’s students pay nothing and indeed when EU students studying in Scotland also pay nothing.

That however is the price of there being no political voice in Westminster campaigning for England’s interests!

Here is a video clip that we did a couple of years ago which helps explain the issue (Link here >>> Students http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCnFhToPsKA&feature=related

The English Democrats have been campaigning on English National Identity and St George’s Day. National Identity is our sense of National Community. It is the glue that holds societies together. It is the sense of “home is where the heart is”.

The IPPR report says:- On National Identity

“The most significant and revealing analysis stems from contrasting the groups that say they are either exclusively English, or more English than British, with those that say they are exclusively British, or more British than English. …The results are striking. Those that prioritise their English over their British identity (40 per cent), outnumber those that prioritise their British over their English identity (16 per cent) by more than two-to-one.

“One indication of the pride in and attachment to England across the English electorate is the very strong support shown in the .... survey to the suggestion that St George’s Day should be celebrated as a bank holiday. … fully 74 per cent of our respondents agreed with this proposition, with 47 per cent ‘agreeing strongly’. … We should not be surprised … that an increased awareness of and pride in Englishness is being accompanied by such overwhelming levels of support to the public celebration of English national identity.”

The Constitutional issue of what should happen about England is often called the West Lothian Question. The WLQ is the name given to the English Question by those who don’t want the issue to be understood as such by the general public. The Government has just announced the membership of its Commission. It is clear that this Commission, chaired by Sir William Makay has been set up to propose EVEL and its membership picked to achieve this.

For those of us who are campaigning for an English Parliament there remains a battle to be fought against the advocates of English Votes for English Laws (aka “EVEL”), but EVEL, even if it could be made to work, which is a big if, is a red hearing because the key issue is the Government of England, not merely its representation in a parliament, but even with the volunteers of the English Democrats’ very limited resources support for an English Parliament is now standing at 36% and is the single most popular option.

Here is a clip which shows one of our supporters, Garry Bushell, making the case for an English Parliament. (Click here >>> "Why an English Parliament?" http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M8g-HoqJwM0&NR=1

So all in all we are making great progress, even if you focus on the narrow perspective of our core campaigning issues.

But looking more widely for example on our policy of withdrawing from the EU. Ladies and Gentlemen, unlike UKIP we, English Democrats, started unprejudiced and with the blank sheet of aiming to do whatever was best for England but we could see that there is no way that an English Nationalist can make a case for supporting the EU.

Now our scepticism has been proved by the failures of the EU itself. The EU is hostile to Englishness and wants to supplement all of Europe’s National Identities with a new EUish one, or in the words of several Lib Dems to me “to dissolve all our petty nationalisms in the greater European whole!” or is that hole? The EU costs English Taxpayers at present over £16 billion a year just for the annual subscription and that is even when David Cameron isn’t handing out large wedges of our cash for Euro bail outs and thus squandering all of our future life prospects.

Also consider, unchecked mass immigration which can now be undeniably seen as undermining the living standards of ordinary people in England and the job prospects of our youth (your job prospects!) and also a threat to our own culture. From our launch we have said that our immigration system should be like Australia or Canada, fair, vigorously enforced and aiming to look after the interests of our country and our citizens.

Also I cannot miss out the potential for gains to the English Democrats in the coming 1,000 days before Alex Salmond’s Scottish Independence Referendum. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my prediction that he will win this referendum and succeed in ending the UK. The British Unionist Establishment is all over the place on Scottish independence, seeing it just as a Scottish issue but again the IPPR report shows that English people are increasingly assertive that we to have a right to be consulted on what should happen for England. The English Democrats are the only voice for England in this debate and are increasingly being recognised as such by the media.

Ladies and Gentlemen I think that both for English Nationalism and also for the English Democrats, to use New Lolours’ phrase “the only way is up!”

Just before I finish let me say a few words about our campaign for Elected Council Leaders (aka “Mayors”).

As you may be aware a couple of years ago we won the elected Mayoralty of Doncaster and in September 2010 I launched our nationwide campaign for Elected Mayors for every local authority in England.

The Elected Executive Mayoral system is a better and more democratic one than the only legally permitted alternative of a councillor who is selected by other councillors, no doubt on the well worn principles of “Buggins’ turn” and “back-scratching” to be the Leader with a cabinet.

Both roles have exactly the same powers and exactly the same pay and the same four year period of office. The sole legal difference is that the Elected Mayor is chosen by the voters of their local authority.

So for a democrat – and we English Democrats chose our name carefully, because we are about both England and also about Democracy – for a Democrat - the option of having an Elected Mayor is clearly the only proper one.

The political opportunity for the English Democrats as a Party is that we can trigger a legally binding referendum by getting the signatures of 5% of the local electorate on a petition.

Well Ladies and Gentlemen let me tell you that we have registered such petitions with each and every relevant local authority throughout England.

Two weeks ago we had the first fruits of this campaign, when we won the first referendum which we have triggered, in Salford and now Salford Council will be having a Mayoral election on 3rd May with our candidate having a fighting chance of taking Salford out of Labour control for the first time since the current local authority was created in the mid 70’s.

That referendum Ladies and Gentlemen is the first of many that we will trigger.

For example, I have hopes of causing an upset in my home area of Brentwood, which is Eric Pickles’ seat, the Secretary of State for Local Government, who is spearheading the partisan efforts of this Government which as you may know was to cause referenda in the 12 largest cities of England, 11 of which are Labour controlled. In Brentwood, Ladies and Gentlemen, rather like the self interested Salford Labour Party, he is nevertheless opposed to an elected Mayor because, of course, that would threaten Conservative control of Brentwood.

In Nottingham there is of course a particular point in mentioning all this because you have a Mayoral Referendum in May. I would urge you to campaign for an Elected Mayor for Nottingham and so help give the people of Nottingham a more open and democratic local political leadership.

Before finishing I have to mention the Elected Law and Order Commissioners – in November this I think will be a great opportunity for the English Democrats, because I don’t think anyone has a manifesto more in tune with public opinion on law and order.

Ladies and Gentlemen thank you for your patience in listening to me and thank you Dr Goodwin for inviting me to come here today.

Friday, 3 February 2012

Sign my e-petition! Let's see if we can get 100,000 signatures and get MPs forced to discuss this.

Create an English First Minister, Government and Parliament.

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

"We, the undersigned, demand immediate legislation to call a referendum of the Sovereign People of England, to take place on or before the date of the Independence Referendum in Scotland. This Referendum must seek the Mandate of the English Nation to create an English Parliament, with a First Minister and Government for England, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones."

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Yesterday I went up to Sheffield and, at a literally packed meeting, was interviewed by Len Tingle, the BBC's chief political reporter for Yorkshire.

After the interview, the meeting heard excellent speeches by Sheffield Chairman David Wildgoose and Leeds Chairman Chris Beverley and was treated to a sumptuous spread of sandwiches and snacks. The meeting then resumed and endured my speech with remarkably good grace!

Here is the text of my speech:-

Ladies and Gentlemen

Thank you for your kind welcome to Sheffield. Thank you also to Matthew and to all those that have helped make this meeting possible.

I thought that I would say a few things about myself. I am a Solicitor; and, Yes, I have heard the old one about solicitors being buried 12 feet down not the regular 6 because “deep down” solicitors are quite nice! I should also confess that we all have our dirty secrets – mine is that I am a “recovering” Tory!

I am one of the founder members of the English Democrats and have been Chairman since we launched in August 2002. We are a Party which has grown organically from nothing to nearly 3,000 members.

All the money which we have raised has been spent on campaigning and many of us have put in significant sums of money into the campaign.

Why have we done this? The answer, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that we have done it because we love England and are not willing to go to our graves without having done all in our power to preserve our country.

When the English Democrats were launched England faced being broken up into “Regions”. The Regionalisation Scheme was started by John Major’s Government, after Maastricht, but in 2002 was being pursued enthusiastically by Labour with John Prescott saying “There is no such nationality as English” backed by William Hague saying “English Nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism”. The aim of Regionalisation, as clearly stated, by the then Liberal Democrats Leader, to a meeting like this of Dunfermline’s Liberal Democrats, Charlie Kennedy who said, and I quote, that he supported “Breaking England up into EU Regions because “it is calling into question the idea of England itself”.

We campaigned in the North East Regional Assembly Referendum for a No Vote and we have now seen off any chance of Regionalisation gaining any popular mandate, if the Labour supporting think tank can be believed – and I think they can – they have found a mere 9% support for “Each Region of England to have its own assembly”.

We have also been, from the start, in the forefront of bringing the Barnett Formula, the unfair extra spending in Scotland and Wales, to the attention of the English.

When I first started campaigning I actually had people accuse me of lying because they had never heard of it from the British media. Again the IPPR report shows awareness of this beginning to rise in early 2003 just as we began actually campaigning.

Now the English overwhelmingly want to see action to address this. The IPPR report says that there is:-

“A growing perception within England that the English get a raw deal from the devolution settlement. (It is) clear that there is an increasingly strong tendency in England to believe that Scotland gets more than its ‘fair share’ of public spending. Indeed the number of people who believe this has more than doubled in the last decade.”

The English Democrats have been campaigning on English National Identity and St George’s Day. The IPPR report says:- On National Identity

“The most significant and revealing analysis stems from contrasting the groups that say they are either exclusively English, or more English than British, with those that say they are exclusively British, or more British than English. …The results are striking. Those that prioritise their English over their British identity (40 per cent), outnumber those that prioritise their British over their English identity (16 per cent) by more than two-to-one.

“One indication of the pride in and attachment to England across the English electorate is the very strong support shown in the .... survey to the suggestion that St George’s Day should be celebrated as a bank holiday. … fully 74 per cent of our respondents agreed with this proposition, with 47 per cent ‘agreeing strongly’. … We should not be surprised … that an increased awareness of and pride in Englishness is being accompanied by such overwhelming levels of support to the public celebration of English national identity.”

There remains a battle to be fought against the advocates of English Votes for English Laws (aka “EVEL”) and an English Parliament but EVEL, even if it could be made to work, which is a big if, is a red hearing because the key issue is the Government of England, not merely its representation in a parliament, but even with our very limited resources support for an English Parliament is now standing at 36%!

So all in all we are making great progress, even if you focus on the narrow perspective of our core campaigning issues.

But looking more widely for example on our policy of withdrawing from the EU. We started unprejudiced and with a blank sheet but could see that there is no way that an English Nationalist can make a case for supporting the EU. Now our scepticism has been proved by the failures of the EU itself.

Also consider, unchecked mass immigration which can now be undeniably seen as undermining the living standards of ordinary people and also a threat to our own culture. Put thoughtfully and carefully this is a very important issue with huge political potential.

Also I cannot miss out the potential for gains to our Party in the coming 1,000 days before the Scottish Referendum. The British Unionist Establishment is all over the place on this, seeing it just as a Scottish issue but again the IPPR report shows that English people are increasingly assertive that we to have a right to be consulted on what should happen for England. The English Democrats are the only voice for England in this debate.

Ladies and Gentlemen I think that both for English Nationalism and, with your help also for the English Democrats, to coin a phrase “the only way is up!”

Just before I finish let me say a few words about our campaign for Elected Council Leaders (aka “Mayors”).

As you may be aware a couple of years ago we won the elected Mayoralty of Doncaster and in September 2010 I launched our nationwide campaign for elected mayors for every local authority in England.

The Mayoral system is a better and more democratic one than the only legally permitted alternative of a councillor who is selected by other councillors, no doubt on the well worn principles of “Buggins’ turn” and “back-scratching” to be the Leader with a cabinet.

Both roles have exactly the same powers and exactly the same pay and term of office. The sole legal difference is that the Elected Mayor is chosen by the People.

So for a democrat – and we English Democrats chose our name carefully because we are about both England and also about democracy – for a Democrat the option of having an Elected Mayor is clearly the only proper one.

The political opportunity for us as a Party is that we can trigger a legally binding referendum by getting the signatures of 5% of the local electorate on a petition.

Well Ladies and Gentlemen let me tell you that we have registered such petitions with each and every relevant local authority throughout England.

Last Thursday we had the first fruits of this campaign, when we won the first referendum which we have triggered, in Salford and now Salford Council will be having a Mayoral election on 3rd May with our candidate having a fighting chance of taking Salford out of Labour control for the first time since the current local authority was created in the mid 70’s.

That referendum Ladies and Gentlemen is the first of many that we will trigger.

For example, I have hopes of causing an upset in my home area of Brentwood, which is Eric Pickles’ seat, the Secretary of State for Local Government, who is spearheading the partisan efforts of this Government to cause referenda in the 12 largest cities of England, 11 of which are Labour controlled. In Brentwood, Ladies and Gentlemen, rather like the self interested Salford Labour Party, he is nevertheless opposed to an elected Mayor because, of course, that would threaten Conservative control of Brentwood.

As a campaigning issue Elected Mayors is hard to beat because it is local so you will get local media coverage and it requires getting a petition signed but unlike the usual ones this has legal teeth – and you’re solely there for democracy. It puts you firmly in the sensible, “concerned”, citizen pigeon hole!

In Sheffield there is of course a particular point in mentioning all this because you have a Mayoral Referendum in May. I would urge you to campaign for an Elected Mayor for Sheffield and if the vote is yes then our Party should stand a candidate. With your permission I would therefore like to call this the inaugural meeting of the Yorkshire “Yes” to Elected Mayors Campaign.

Before finishing I have to mention the Elected Law and Order Commissioners – in November this I think will be a great opportunity for us, because I don’t think anyone has a manifesto more in tune with public opinion on law and order.

Ladies and Gentlemen we are meeting here in interesting times for our Party and our Cause but our ambitions will all depend on what help we can get from volunteers and what money we can raise from our supporters. I urge you to get involved and help us make 2012 a great year for the Cause of English Nationalism!

Ladies and Gentlemen thank you for your patience in listening to me and inviting me to come here today.